Halo set for 2018 introduction after Strategy Group meeting

Formula 1 is set to introduce the Halo cockpit protection device for 2018 after the FIA pushed it through on safety grounds at Wednesday’s Strategy Group meeting.

The Halo and Shield have emerged as the two options for cockpit protection, with the FIA insistent some form of device will be introduced next season.

While the Halo has undergone extensive testing, with all the teams running the device at least once, Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel tested the Shield for the first time in British Grand Prix practice last Friday.

The German however cut short his run as he felt "dizzy" using it, while Haas driver Romain Grosjean commented he felt it was "as bad as" the Halo he tried in 2016.

When the matter was discussed at the meeting in Geneva, it is believed the Shield was put on the backburner for now as it was felt significant further investigation was required.

Sources say nine out of 10 teams voted against the Halo, but the FIA said it would become part of the regulations for 2018 on safety grounds, albeit with "certain features of its design" being "further enhanced".

It still requires final ratification by the World Motor Sport Council but this can be completed by e-vote if necessary.

Only six of the 10 teams on the grid - Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, McLaren and Force India - have previously been part of the meetings along with the commercial rights holder and the FIA.

But at the last meeting, F1 sporting boss Ross Brawn presented the concept of inviting teams not officially part of the group to attend as observers - and this is believed to have been the case on Wednesday.

Those not officially part of the group did not take part in the discussion, but were occasionally asked for their viewpoints on various subjects.

Cost control working group

The Strategy Group also discussed the issue of cost control, and will set up a working group - comprising representatives from the Formula One Group, the FIA and teams - to work on implementing measures “aimed at ensuring the sport remains sustainable in the coming years".

Discussion also centred around ways to improve the overall show, with several ideas put forward for investigation before the next meeting.

Can the team's just say eff it? If all 10 teams ignore it what will they do? Stop everyone from racing? Cancle every race?

The teams really need to grow some pairs.

Sources say nine out of 10 teams voted against the Halo, but the FIA said it would become part of the regulations for 2018 on safety grounds, albeit with "certain features of its design" being "further enhanced".

Nine out of 10 teams voted against. Wonder which team that is, probably one of the big ones. I think if 10 out of 10 voted against it might've been a different story.

This is crazy. The only thing this hideous device could've saved is Massa ending up at the hospital, nothing else. In fact, it can only cause bigger problems when cars overturn or crash. F1 is extremely safe, no need for further safety regulations with these cars. More safety regulations should be introduced when/ if the cars start going 500 kph top speed. Now, they are destroying the DNA of the sport for no reason whatsoever. Craziness. What do they gain by this?!

Jules died because of a crane that should've been there in the first place and there's absolutely no way he could've been saved by this grotesque and repulsive contraption!!!! I really hate it when they repeat Jules' accident as a reason for this hideous contraption.

Jules died because of a crane that should've been there in the first place and there's absolutely no way he could've been saved by this grotesque and repulsive contraption!!!! I really hate it when they repeat Jules' accident as a reason for this hideous contraption.

1. Jules was driving at a higher speed in the rain and lost control of his car.

2. Charlie could have called for a SC(to slow everyone down) instead of a VSC due to the inclement weather and the crane being brought out to pick up another car that

was in that same turn where Jules "lost control of his car"; but he did'nt.

so yeah....some mitigating factors that, more than likely, could have prevented this horrific and tragic incident.

2. Charlie could have called for a SC(to slow everyone down) instead of a VSC due to the inclement weather and the crane being brought out to pick up another car that

Didn't Jules' accident happened under SC? I think VSC was implemented after Jules' accident as a result. Jules was driving very fast under SC in heavy conditions in order to catch up with the others. You can't drive that fast under VSC as you are immediately slowed down.

Didn't Jules' accident happened under SC? I think VSC was implemented after Jules' accident as a result. Jules was driving very fast under SC in heavy conditions in order to catch up with the others. You can't drive that fast under VSC as you are immediately slowed down.

Protocol was much different at the time, all that was required was a slight lift through the yellow flag area, that would show on telemetry you were being cautious. This is what was expected of all drivers at the time.

Shameful of FIA to portray Jules as using poor judgement & not slowing enough, when that was what was expected from all drivers at that time. Now all this proactive halo garbage to try to show the courts how safety conscious they are. A cynical person might think they were doing this to lessen any judgement against them in the Bianchi lawsuit.

Forza Ferrari !"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." - Juan Manuel Fangio

Jules died because of a crane that should've been there in the first place and there's absolutely no way he could've been saved by this grotesque and repulsive contraption!!!! I really hate it when they repeat Jules' accident as a reason for this hideous contraption.

Nailed it. Jules would still be among the living if that crane wasn't where a car could get pinned underneath.

11. It is not feasible to mitigate the injuries Bianchi suffered by either enclosing the driver’s cockpit, or fitting skirts to the crane. Neither approach is practical due to the very large forces involved in the accident between a 700kg car striking a 6500kg crane at a speed of 126kph. There is simply insufficient impact structure on a F1 car to absorb the energy of such an impact without either destroying the driver’s survival cell, or generating non-survivable decelerations.

No need for Halo considering no one died from flying debris in the last...how many years? Who died of flying debris? Tom Pryce? I'm talking about F1 only. Besides, small bullet debris might not be stopped by the Halo as it's not protecting the entire space. This repulsive Halo thingy might just cause more problems.

1. Vettel was the only one to try the shield. After one lap he deemed it "dizzy" and it created distortion. So Halo gets approval !

Questions:

1. Why did'nt the other teams try the shield?
2. Distortion? Like they did'nt see that when it was first installed while driving. I'm sure the curvature (distortion) part of the shield could be worked out?

Truly bizarre decision and something that not only ugly but also perhaps an actual safety risk itself, in a crash if it's damaged it could hit or impale the driver, also could trap the driver in the car.

Stupid stupid decision and I feel for lots of F1 fans, this will be the last straw.

I think the fia have decided we need cockpit protection in 2018 and have rushed everything the shield was rushed so was the halo they should keep delaying the date it's needed to be in place until they find a great solution and the halo is far from that

Many media are saying the same thing and no demand from Ferrari so i guess it's true. Disappointing really. Maybe the team was forced by the FIA to vote YES in order for Seb to not be further penalized?